[TS] Slicing the pie, a question?

[Erling]

Strange to say, I've spent whole last day studying step-and-wait/move-and-wait threads on these forums. It's a funny coincidence this topic revived.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

If you allow B to count as already Waiting when B makes the Step, this is the outcome. The problem is that this outcome is a free lunch:
Normally, A has the initiative, and opts to give up the ability to use said initiative immediately in exchange for the ability to interrupt those who lost the initiative.
But with the simultaneous ruling, B suddenly gets the ability to ignore A's initiative, or, more precisely, to act as if their initiatives are tied.
Notice that B loses nothing by taking Step-and-simultaneous-Wait instead of taking an Attack or a normal Wait.
Normally, in GURPS, TANSTAAFL.

What on earth did prevent A from attacking the same turn? That was his own decision, so he must face the consequences. When it comes to simulationsm, I can see no reason why A must have the significant edge over B. A could use his opportunity to attack immediately (before B could get prepared), but he chose to Wait. Now both fighters are in fairly equal situations: they have weapons with same Reach and they both need to make some movement in order to attack. Isn't Cascading Waits (MA108) rule a satisfying solution? Also, as Celti said, A do has an advantage, as he has no penalty due to movement (it isn't fair, but it's realistic - offensive fighting can be more difficult than defensive manner).

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Celti

If character A is Waiting, and character B is Step-and-Waiting, wouldn't you simply use the Cascading Waits rules as written, noting that B is at +0 because he is moving a Step, and A is at +2 because he's not moving at all, as written in the listed modifiers?

Exactly so.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

If you allow B to count as already Waiting when B makes the Step, this is the outcome. The problem is that this outcome is a free lunch:
Normally, A has the initiative, and opts to give up the ability to use said initiative immediately in exchange for the ability to interrupt those who lost the initiative.
But with the simultaneous ruling, B suddenly gets the ability to ignore A's initiative, or, more precisely, to act as if their initiatives are tied.
Notice that B loses nothing by taking Step-and-simultaneous-Wait instead of taking an Attack or a normal Wait.

Normally, in GURPS, TANSTAAFL.

Sure, but why is that a bad thing?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Langy

Sure, but why is that a bad thing?

A while back I suggested the idea of mechanics for beating a Wait. There was quite a lot of disagreement with the idea, though I didn't find it very convincing...

This would be making it substantially easier than what I was suggesting, though.



Also, there's a perversity. If you can beat a Wait with a step-and-Wait, what do you do if you've got some sort of super-sense so you see the target around the corner before making your move? You do exactly the same thing as if you didn't, because if you actually used that information to make some kind of Attack maneuver, you'd be handing them a guaranteed first shot rather than a roll-off.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Celti

If character A is Waiting, and character B is Step-and-Waiting, wouldn't you simply use the Cascading Waits rules as written, noting that B is at +0 because he is moving a Step, and A is at +2 because he's not moving at all, as written in the listed modifiers?

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

If you allow B to count as already Waiting when B makes the Step, this is the outcome. The problem is that this outcome is a free lunch:
Normally, A has the initiative, and opts to give up the ability to use said initiative immediately in exchange for the ability to interrupt those who lost the initiative.
But with the simultaneous ruling, B suddenly gets the ability to ignore A's initiative, or, more precisely, to act as if their initiatives are tied.
Notice that B loses nothing by taking Step-and-simultaneous-Wait instead of taking an Attack or a normal Wait.

Normally, in GURPS, TANSTAAFL.

But its not a free lunch the chap waiting without moving gets a +2 bounus on the cascading wait QC that quite a lot in cases of roughly similar levels of combatants.

The step and wait cutting the pie is a compromise solution when facing a potential waiting opponent on the other side of the door between:

A). moving in normally (and more quickly) and attacking, and getting hit by a waiting opponent

and

B). Standing there with you own wait not moving.


Cutting the pie is normally down by those initiating the action, doing so against opponent who can sit and wait is a compromise. This is shown by the relative -2 disadvantage.

For me step and wait is kind of like the half way house between wait and not waiting, in the same way as defensive attack is compromise between AoD and standard attack.

Basically a free lunch assumes there's no down sides to doing it, and that not the case. Your limited to a step, your limited in your target choice (you concentrating on the appearance of target in a specific place) and your disadvantaged against a waiting target who's waiting for you.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Erling

Strange to say, I've spent whole last day studying step-and-wait/move-and-wait threads on these forums. It's a funny coincidence this topic revived.

What on earth did prevent A from attacking the same turn? That was his own decision, so he must face the consequences. When it comes to simulationsm, I can see no reason why A must have the significant edge over B. A could use his opportunity to attack immediately (before B could get prepared), but he chose to Wait. Now both fighters are in fairly equal situations: they have weapons with same Reach and they both need to make some movement in order to attack. Isn't Cascading Waits (MA108) rule a satisfying solution? Also, as Celti said, A do has an advantage, as he has no penalty due to movement (it isn't fair, but it's realistic - offensive fighting can be more difficult than defensive manner).

Nothing prevented A from doing it, A just made the choice to do it in a more tactically sound manner. A still has the initiative as compared to B, but instead of attacking before B immediately, A chose to attack before B when in range (or sight, for pie-slicing).

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Langy

Sure, but why is that a bad thing?

I just quoted a wall of text showing what happened back when a similar free lunch was available and what was bad about it.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

But its not a free lunch the chap waiting without moving gets a +2 bounus on the cascading wait QC that quite a lot in cases of roughly similar levels of combatants.

The step and wait cutting the pie is a compromise solution when facing a potential waiting opponent on the other side of the door between:

A). moving in normally (and more quickly) and attacking, and getting hit by a waiting opponent

and

B). Standing there with you own wait not moving.


Cutting the pie is normally down by those initiating the action, doing so against opponent who can sit and wait is a compromise. This is shown by the relative -2 disadvantage.

For me step and wait is kind of like the half way house between wait and not waiting, in the same way as defensive attack is compromise between AoD and standard attack.

Basically a free lunch assumes there's no down sides to doing it, and that not the case. Your limited to a step, your limited in your target choice (you concentrating on the appearance of target in a specific place) and your disadvantaged against a waiting target who's waiting for you.

There are no down sides to doing it. Let's compare:

• Wait gives up the right to attack immediately (risking characters in the turn sequence between A and B doing something to influence it, among other things) and the right to move before the Wait is triggered. A Wait is wasted if the external condition doesn't occur (e.g. nobody steps into your range).
• Attack gets to perform the action immediately, with a step before or after it. It also is vulnerable to Waits (i.e. a Waiter gets to act before the Attacker).
• A Step-and-Wait does everything the Attack does and more, with no downsides; plus everything Wait does (though you move your Step to before your Attack). It gets to attack immediately by setting up a trigger condition that you yourself fulfil by stepping (so you never waste your opportunity). It gets a free ride to become 'tied' in the initiative order with someone who has the initiative. It gets the mobility of Attack. It is not any more vulnerable to Waits or Step-and-Waits than a Wait, and is always a priority over an enemy Attack.

Really, Step-and-Wait gets the best of both worlds, and no or nearly no drawbacks in exchange for it. If you have the right to make Step-and-Waits, you'll probably never ever need to perform normal Attacks ever again.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

There are no down sides to doing it. Let's compare:

• Wait gives up the right to attack immediately (risking characters in the turn sequence between A and B doing something to influence it, among other things) and the right to move before the Wait is triggered. A Wait is wasted if the external condition doesn't occur (e.g. nobody steps into your range)
  
• Attack gets to perform the action immediately, with a step before or after it. It also is vulnerable to Waits (i.e. a Waiter gets to act before the Attacker).
• A Step-and-Wait does everything the Attack does and more, with no downsides; plus everything Wait does (though you move your Step to before your Attack). It gets to attack immediately by setting up a trigger condition that you yourself fulfil by stepping (so you never waste your opportunity). It gets a free ride to become 'tied' in the initiative order with someone who has the initiative. It gets the mobility of Attack. It is not any more vulnerable to Waits or Step-and-Waits than a Wait, and is always a priority over an enemy Attack.

Really, Step-and-Wait gets the best of both worlds, and no or nearly no drawbacks in exchange for it. If you have the right to make Step-and-Waits, you'll probably never ever need to perform normal Attacks ever again.

Only your limited to a step so you're having to do this very slowly, you only get you to attack vs. the expected target, so you can be flanked and will not react well to other things. Finally your still disadvantaged against someone doing a normal wait, waiting for you. If he wins the QC with the +2 bonus you get none of the benefits and only the disadvantages.

Step and wait accesses the benefits of both, but the disadvantages of both apply too. That's what a half way house means.

The thing is your making very abstract comparisons, I think it because less of problem if you actually envisage situations this would be used in because the context will effect the relative benefits an issues of each choice.


Take the example already given:

One chap (A) in a room covering the door taking a wait action for target appearing in the door. One chap (B) cutting the pie with the intent to clear the room.


The chap inside is waiting in the room so is not on the clock, the chap outside is initiating so it stands to reason he is on the clock.

'A' has choice he can move and attack getting more movement

But he't eat 'B's attack


'A' can wait in the normal fashion, which is safest for him, but nothing happens room will never be cleared


'A' can step and wait, which at least gets him to his goal, but all else being equal he'll be at a disadvantage when it comes to the ensuing cascading waits QC.


basically to truly judge this you have to take into account the whole context. Yes in abstract your right if you take step and wait, step and wait every single round you will have an advantage over taking normal attacks, but only so long as you targets appear when and where you expect them to appear and moving step per turn doesn't cause you other issues.

As GM I can think of many ways to punish someone doing that (and I think RL combat would too)

This is true of assessing combat options in general I find some situations will favour some options over other, but that's kind of the point of them. Assuming a situation that favours one option is not a very good way to compare options in general.

However I should add I tend to play up situational awareness and gun sighting and all the stuff in TS in this kind of circumstance.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Only your limited to a step so you're having to do this very slowly, you only get you to attack vs. the expected target, so you can be flanked and will not react well to other things. Finally your still disadvantaged against someone doing a normal wait, waiting for you. If he wins the QC with the +2 bonus you get none of the benefits and only the disadvantages.

Which is in all aspects no slower, no narrower, and no more vulnerable than Attack nor Wait.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Step and wait accesses the benefits of both, but the disadvantages of both apply too. That's what a half way house means.

The thing is your making very abstract comparisons, I think it because less of problem if you actually envisage situations this would be used in because the context will effect the relative benefits an issues of each choice.


Take the example already given:

One chap (A) in a room covering the door taking a wait action for target appearing in the door. One chap (B) cutting the pie with the intent to clear the room.


The chap inside is waiting in the room so is not on the clock, the chap outside is initiating so it stands to reason he is on the clock.

'A' has choice he can move and attack getting more movement

You say it has the disadvantages of both. This isn't so:
A Wait's flaws relative to the Attack are that (a) Waiter can't move until the condition triggers and (b) Waiter might lose a turn if the condition does not trigger (and has no control over whether the condition triggers). Attack's flaw relative to Wait is primarily that the Attacker gets automatically interrupted by a Waiter (assuming the waiter has the initiative).
Step-and-simultaneous-Wait (a) can move as for a normal Attack, (b) can guarantee a trigger of one's condition by wording the conditions in such a way that they always trigger upon stepping and (c) gets to contest people who Wait. A Step-then-Wait gets benefit (a) but not (b); whether benefit (c) applies depends on what the Enemy Waiter's condition is.

You're bringing in Move and Attack, but we're not comparing Attack to Move and Attack nor Wait to M&A. We're comparing Wait vs. Attack vs. Step-and-simultaneous-Wait. And in that comparison, S&sW is always better than either.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

But he't eat 'B's attack

'A' can wait in the normal fashion, which is safest for him, but nothing happens room will never be cleared

'A' can step and wait, which at least gets him to his goal, but all else being equal he'll be at a disadvantage when it comes to the ensuing cascading waits QC.

So what did A give up in order to gain the QC roll in the first place, as compared to normal Attack?
It's like you invented a new manoeuvre, Desperate Attack, which gets all the benefits of All-Out Attack, and may roll defences as if performing a Committed Attack. If such a manoeuvre would become available, it would always be taken in favour of (instead of) both AoA and Committed Attack, since it has no drawbacks compared to them.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

basically to truly judge this you have to take into account the whole context. Yes in abstract your right if you take step and wait, step and wait every single round you will have an advantage over taking normal attacks, but only so long as you targets appear when and where you expect them to appear and moving step per turn doesn't cause you other issues.

Which applies to Attack manoeuvres too - one step, and you need to see the target.

[Celti]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

(b) can guarantee a trigger of one's condition by wording the conditions in such a way that they always trigger upon stepping

Can you please give an example of such a condition? I don't think I as a GM would actually allow a Wait that contrived.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Celti

Can you please give an example of such a condition? I don't think I as a GM would actually allow a Wait that contrived.

For a mêlée situation:
Condition is 'when an enemy is in range'. Then the character steps into range.
For slicing the pie:
Condition is 'when an enemy is becomes a closer target than when the condition was declared'. Then the character steps forward. (Or you can set up the condition for 'further' and step back.)
With Slicing the Pie, you can't guarantee that you get to shoot, but you can guarantee that you get to shoot if/when you sight an enemy (which is really all you need): just set up the condition to 'if an enemy is in sight' and step behind the corner.